Secondly, the whole point is that it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what they think. These people have relatives, spouses etc. in Iraq, many of whom do in fact believe in what they are doing. Then they're told that those people's lives are "wasted." The fact that you can't understand that shows that you care only about your view.

Hmmm. Do you really believe this? Honestly? Or are you really just intent on scoring political points? Because Republicans were sayinig something completely different in 1995.

Regarding Bosnia, during consideration of that same bill, the Senate passed a sense of Congress amendment that no funds should be made available to deploy U.S. armed forces to participate in the implementation of a peace settlement in Bosnia unless previously authorized by Congress. Another provision on the same bill opposed U.S. participation in any peacekeeping or peace-enforcing operations unless "the President initiates consultations with the bipartisan leadership of Congress" [Senator Robert Dole, Congressional Record, 9/26/95, p. S14271].

The decision to send U.S. troops to any region warrants Congressional scrutiny.

What will we tell the families of the troops?

Quote:

While to a large degree, the number of troops required will be dependent on the terms of the peace accord, the fact that the Administration does not hold a unified position on such a critical issue is of particular concern.

Of equal concern is how long U.S. troops will remain in Bosnia. According to a press
report. the "exit strategy" currently being discussed among Administration officials and
NATO allies is to begin withdrawing some troops six to eight months after their original
deployment. But what about the rest of the troops? And how many are some?

It's really sad how inconsistent Republicans are on this issue, isn't it?

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

I'm just really, really glad that no Republicans anywhere referred to US involvement in the Balkans or the US involvement in Somalia as a "wag the dog" diversion from Lewinski! I mean, heavens! What would we tell the families!

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

I'm just really, really glad that no Republicans anywhere referred to US involvement in the Balkans or the US involvement in Somalia as a "wag the dog" diversion from Lewinski! I mean, heavens! What would we tell the families!

The families are sensitive. They need coddling and protection.

I'm not quite sure how they dealt with their sons and daughters actually joining the military in the first place. You know, putting themselves in harms way and all. That must've been rough. Sleepless nights worrying whether or not they might actually get deployed to somewhere unsafe.

It must be hard for these families who have loved ones fighting for freedom of democracy, freedom of speech and the right to debate and then having our elected leaders, you know, actually exercising these freedoms. I'm sure that's got to be fucking hard to deal with.

[/sarcasm] For the sarcasm impaired.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

The wildest part is that no one actually knows what this guy stands for... he just looks uh, "CLEAN..." One look at his (rather skimpy) voting history should tell us that if he runs as a left leaning-centrist, he's a more fraudulent than even Hillary.

He'll only get anywhere by doing what all leftists do at election time- act "new" and "conservative."
Fight it all you want- that Dem majority was elected on flag-waving middle-of-the-road CONSERVATIVE themes.

Indeed. But if you need more... Were you paying attention to how little they talked about ending the tax cuts, instant de-funding of the war, more gun control, etc during the election? And what happened to Murtha, Kennedy, Reid, and Pelosi in the weeks before the election? They disappeared because the real left wing nature of the Dem party does not play well in the electorate.

Indeed. But if you need more... Were you paying attention to how little they talked about ending the tax cuts, instant de-funding of the war, more gun control, etc during the election? And what happened to Murtha, Kennedy, Reid, and Pelosi in the weeks before the election? They disappeared because the real left wing nature of the Dem party does not play well in the electorate.

Murtha and Reid are left wing? Someone needs to get his liberal-o-meter recalibrated.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

I think he clarified the remark and I don't hold it against him. That said, what I do take issue with is the double standard, both in the media and here on these boards.

If this had been a Republican, you'd be jumping on it like a John on a cheap hooker. Same goes with the media. Wait until Guilani, Romney or McCain say something that is along these lines. It will be bigger than "Anna Nicole: Death of an Icon!"

Well we now have a test case. John McCain: "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." And barely a peep from the media. Yup, a double standard alright.

The low minimum wage is the number one cause of unemploymentbecause the minimum wage is so low, in most places it puts people in extreme poverty (try being a single mom with kids on $10,000 a year), they're forced to take on multiple jobs in order to survive.

Even if you're too sociopathic to concern yourself about innercity kids starving with both parents struggling at 80-hour jobs to survive, look at it another way: pay increases given to them will be immediately loosed back into the economy, which is still a net win for society.

The low minimum wage is the number one cause of unemploymentbecause the minimum wage is so low, in most places it puts people in extreme poverty (try being a single mom with kids on $10,000 a year), they're forced to take on multiple jobs in order to survive.

Even if you're too sociopathic to concern yourself about innercity kids starving with both parents struggling at 80-hour jobs to survive, look at it another way: pay increases given to them will be immediately loosed back into the economy, which is still a net win for society.

Soup line America sucks. Thanks for the well-reasoned response. I don't mind an increase, it just that what the Dems are proposing is too much too fast. Small businesses like mine WILL be laying off those "single moms" who need it- or we can just all go out of business and have no paychecks for anyone. The reality is that the Min Wage fight is only important in the corridors of power because union wages are often based on the MW times a negotiated multiplier. It's a little back scratching for those Democratic union votes.

Do people deserve a living wage? Of course. Do we need to address how much in taxes EVERYONE pays and how that hurts the working poor more than anyone? Yep.

The low minimum wage is the number one cause of unemploymentbecause the minimum wage is so low, in most places it puts people in extreme poverty (try being a single mom with kids on $10,000 a year), they're forced to take on multiple jobs in order to survive.

Even if you're too sociopathic to concern yourself about innercity kids starving with both parents struggling at 80-hour jobs to survive, look at it another way: pay increases given to them will be immediately loosed back into the economy, which is still a net win for society.

Uh...OK. So the increase affects starving mothers and children, but in the same breath, it only ends up affecting "high school kids."

You can't have it both ways. It's also clear you really have no idea about who actually earns minimum wage. The vast majority of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes of $45,000 a year plus. That means, simply, that most minimum wage earners are not the sole income earners in their households. There are, from the last information I'm aware of, about two million people earning minimum wage as the the sole income earners. So, the increase will certainly help those people...if they keep their jobs.

But they very well may not. Most entry level, non-skilled positions already pay significantly more than the minumum. Fast food restaurants often start at $7.00 or more per hour...right now. Now I know what you'll say...that's not a livable wage. But the minimum wage is not intended to be a livable wage. It's intended to be the minimum legal compensation. It exists to prevent near-slave labor, to set a standard that promotes human dignity. My argument is simply this...$5.85 an hour does just that.

As for how it will cause unemployment, well guess what? It will. A personal anecdote: My father recently heard from a friend of his that owns a small business. He has several employees who are currently making $8.00 an hour (I don't recall what it is they do). As soon as the minimum wage passed, they went to the owner and immediately wanted a $2.00 an hour raise. Can you blame them? Of course not. This owner now believes he may have to reduce his workforce. This is the real effect of boosting the mimum wage. It will marginally help the small portion of the workforce (less than 2%). It will also reduce the number of jobs available...some of which (I'd argue most of which) already pay more than the minimum.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

A personal anecdote: My father recently heard from a friend of his that owns a small business. He has several employees who are currently making $8.00 an hour (I don't recall what it is they do). As soon as the minimum wage passed, they went to the owner and immediately wanted a $2.00 an hour raise. Can you blame them? Of course not. This owner now believes he may have to reduce his workforce. This is the real effect of boosting the mimum wage. It will marginally help the small portion of the workforce (less than 2%).

A personal anecdote: My father recently heard from a friend of his who owns a small business. He has several employees who are currently making $8.00 an hour (I don't recall what it is they do). As soon as the minimum wage passed, they went to the owner and immediately wanted a $2.00 an hour raise. Can you blame them? Of course not. But the owner explained to them that they were already making above the minimum wage, and so an increase in the minimum wage would not affect them. They sighed and said "Oh well. We thought we'd try." The owner explained to them that they were, of course, free to seek employment elsewhere if they needed to make $10 an hour. They replied that they'd rather stay where they were. This is the real effect of boosting the minimum wage. It will help the small portion of the workforce (less than 2%) making the actual minimum wage and leave the remainder untouched.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Uh...OK. So the increase affects starving mothers and children, but in the same breath, it only ends up affecting "high school kids." You can't have it both ways.

No. There's two distinct groups of minimum wage workers. Adults struggling to make ends meet and high school students. If you need to cut jobs, and currently employ both, you'll cut the high school students first. History supports this. The adults have worked and will work for you longer, and provide a better ROI for the wages.

So, a low minimum wage hurts the poor, and while minimum wage increases does cause temporary unemployment, this doesn't greatly affect the group most in need of the increases in the first place.

Quote:

It's also clear you really have no idea about who actually earns minimum wage. The vast majority of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes of $45,000 a year plus.

What did I say about high school kids again? Oh right. We're concerned with poor people. Conflating needy minimum wage earners with well-to-do high school students is meaninglesshigh school kids are clearly the dominant majority here.

Quote:

That means, simply, that most minimum wage earners are not the sole income earners in their households. There are, from the last information I'm aware of, about two million people earning minimum wage as the the sole income earners. So, the increase will certainly help those people...if they keep their jobs.

I'm curious about the details of that statistic. For example, does it include people earning precisely minimum wages, or does it go slightly higher? Do you remember where you got that from?

Quote:

But they very well may not. Most entry level, non-skilled positions already pay significantly more than the minumum. Fast food restaurants often start at $7.00 or more per hour...right now. Now I know what you'll say...that's not a livable wage. But the minimum wage is not intended to be a livable wage. It's intended to be the minimum legal compensation. It exists to prevent near-slave labor, to set a standard that promotes human dignity. My argument is simply this...$5.85 an hour does just that.

This is where we disagree. The minimum wage needs to be a living wage, and insofar as I can tell, was always intended to be one.

Quote:

As for how it will cause unemployment, well guess what? It will. A personal anecdote: My father recently heard from a friend of his that owns a small business. He has several employees who are currently making $8.00 an hour (I don't recall what it is they do). As soon as the minimum wage passed, they went to the owner and immediately wanted a $2.00 an hour raise. Can you blame them? Of course not. This owner now believes he may have to reduce his workforce. This is the real effect of boosting the mimum wage. It will marginally help the small portion of the workforce (less than 2%). It will also reduce the number of jobs available...some of which (I'd argue most of which) already pay more than the minimum.

A personal anecdote: My father recently heard from a friend of his who owns a small business. He has several employees who are currently making $8.00 an hour (I don't recall what it is they do). As soon as the minimum wage passed, they went to the owner and immediately wanted a $2.00 an hour raise. Can you blame them? Of course not. But the owner explained to them that they were already making above the minimum wage, and so an increase in the minimum wage would not affect them. They sighed and said "Oh well. We thought we'd try." The owner explained to them that they were, of course, free to seek employment elsewhere if they needed to make $10 an hour. They replied that they'd rather stay where they were. This is the real effect of boosting the minimum wage. It will help the small portion of the workforce (less than 2%) making the actual minimum wage and leave the remainder untouched.

Defined "untouched"

Because from what I see there are a lot of tight small business owners right now that find it difficult to give people raises, and will find it even more difficult to do so when they are having to pay their low end earners more money.

Note: I am not an opponent of the increase. I support it 100%. That said, I believe it is disingenuous to state that for the most part people earning above the line are untouched.

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.- Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...

No. There's two distinct groups of minimum wage workers. Adults struggling to make ends meet and high school students. If you need to cut jobs, and currently employ both, you'll cut the high school students first. History supports this. The adults have worked and will work for you longer, and provide a better ROI for the wages.

So, a low minimum wage hurts the poor, and while minimum wage increases does cause temporary unemployment, this doesn't greatly affect the group most in need of the increases in the first place.

History? Like what history? And what if you don't employ high school students?

Quote:

What did I say about high school kids again? Oh right. We're concerned with poor people. Conflating needy minimum wage earners with well-to-do high school students is meaningless—high school kids are clearly the dominant majority here.

OK. I'll keep the position in mind.

Quote:

I'm curious about the details of that statistic. For example, does it include people earning precisely minimum wages, or does it go slightly higher? Do you remember where you got that from?

I don't remember.

Quote:

This is where we disagree. The minimum wage needs to be a living wage, and insofar as I can tell, was always intended to be one.

Well fine, disagree. Apparently you're one of the people out there that believe you are owed a decent living standard. At least you're honest about it.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Because from what I see there are a lot of tight small business owners right now that find it difficult to give people raises, and will find it even more difficult to do so when they are having to pay their low end earners more money.

Note: I am not an opponent of the increase. I support it 100%. That said, I believe it is disingenuous to state that for the most part people earning above the line are untouched.

But here's the thing. Business owners don't employ employees out of the goodness of their hearts. They desperately need employees to stay in business. They can't run everything by themselves.

Raising the minimum wage too quickly does cause very slight inflation, but this only affects certain markets, and is negligible considering the benefits of the wage increase in the first place.

History? Like what history? And what if you don't employ high school students?

It was an article cited by Chris Cuilla documenting the effects of the last wage increase. I'll see if I can find it.

Also, from Wikipedia: "Over all, there is no consensus between economists about the effects of minimum wages on youth employment, although empirical evidence suggests that this group is most vulnerable to high minimum wages."

Well fine, disagree. Apparently you're one of the people out there that believe you are owed a decent living standard. At least you're honest about it.

I didn't say "decent" living standard. I said a living standard. The current minimum wage pays for food and living in tight quarters (maybe a two-room apartment for a family of five).

What happens if the family wants to, say, not be naked? What if someone has to make an ER visit? Do they deserve luxuries, like books, or a television? Or running water? Heat?

This is why so many poor people need to take on multiple jobs. If the minimum wage, were say, $7-8, this would be different.

If 1997's $5.15 had kept steadily increasing with inflation, it would be about $6.90 today, and $7.35 in 2009. In other words, it would have been higher than the recent House of Reps bill, but would have been far less drastic in terms of displacing jobs.

It was an article cited by Chris Cuilla documenting the effects of the last wage increase. I'll see if I can find it.

Also, from Wikipedia: "Over all, there is no consensus between economists about the effects of minimum wages on youth employment, although empirical evidence suggests that this group is most vulnerable to high minimum wages."

I didn't say "decent" living standard. I said a living standard. The current minimum wage pays for food and living in tight quarters (maybe a two-room apartment for a family of five).

What happens if the family wants to, say, not be naked? What if someone has to make an ER visit? Do they deserve luxuries, like books, or a television? Or running water? Heat?

This is why so many poor people need to take on multiple jobs. If the minimum wage, were say, $7-8, this would be different.

If 1997's $5.15 had kept steadily increasing with inflation, it would be about $6.90 today, and $7.35 in 2009. In other words, it would have been higher than the recent House of Reps bill, but would have been far less drastic in terms of displacing jobs.

But how many people are our there that actually work for minimum wage? Almost anyone can get a job for more. I've already stated, we have McDonalds paying $7-8 in many places. Labor jobs pay much more too. Seriously...do you know what kind of a...(sorry)...loser one has to be in order to make the minimum?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

But how many people are our there that actually work for minimum wage? Almost anyone can get a job for more. I've already stated, we have McDonalds paying $7-8 in many places. Labor jobs pay much more too. Seriously...do you know what kind of a...(sorry)...loser one has to be in order to make the minimum?